On Sat, 2011-08-27 at 16:22 -0400, Michael Allan wrote: > > > But not for voting. The voting system guarantees that my vote > > > will have no effect and I would look rather foolish to suppose > > > otherwise. This presents a serious problem. Do you agree? > > Dave Ketchum wrote: > > TRULY, this demonstrates lack of understanding of cause and effect. > > > > IF the flask capacity is 32 oz then pouring in 1 oz will: > > . Do nothing above filling if the flask starts with less than 31 oz. > > . Cause overflow if flask already full. > > > > In voting there is often a limit at which time one more would have > > an effect. If the act were pouring sodas into the Atlantic the > > limit would be far away. > > Please relate this to an election. Take an election for a US state > governor, for example. Suppose I am eligible to vote. I say my vote > cannot possibly affect the outcome of the election. You say it can, > under certain conditions. Under what conditions exactly?
The meaning of an individual vote is mostly irrelevant and pointless to discuss. If a barge can carry 10 tons of sand then of course at any point in time while loading the barge no single grain of sand matters, but will *you* get on that barge for a 300 mile journey across lake Superior if it is loaded with 10.1 tons of sand? Probably not. Votes in any election with millions of voters are like this, individually irrelevant, but very meaningful as an aggregate. If there are ten thousand people who share your values and will vote as you vote then together you have a shot at influencing the outcome of the election with 20 thousand voters. For single winner elections in the US we need the simplest system that can force politicians to be accountable to aggregates of voters. Plurality voting creates a situation where the force on the candidates from these smaller groups is a small fraction of the natural or real force. In my opinion this is *the* key issue to fix at this point in history. I noticed something interesting in that some polling I heard reported on the radio for the Republican nominee candidate sounded like approval. It was reported as a per candidate vote ("when asked, 20% of likely voters would vote for X)". It really is a very natural way to vote and because it is *aggregates* that matter a single vote for each candidate is all that is needed to accurately articulate the will of the people. So back to meaning of a vote. Well, in approval, if N is the number of candidates and V the number of voters I guess you get a maximum of (N*1/N)/V worth of influence. With plurality you get (1/N)/V for influence so to really stretch the sand analogy, if you fill your barge with plurality sand your 10.1 tons of sand might actually only weigh one or two tons and you can sally forth on your 300 mile journey with nary a worry. A final analogy ... I remember a science fiction story (maybe a Harry Harrison book?) where a prison was constructed of a massive stone disc set in a stone recess. The cells were along the edge of the disk such that the prisoners could push on the outer stone wall but the gap was too small to escape. If enough prisoners pushed on that wall the disk would move a few centimeters. The only way out of the prison was to get the disk to make a full rotation where the cell was exposed to an exit. If on a particular day a prisoner didn't push on the wall you probably could not measure the reduction in distance moved that day. The individual vote (prisoner pushing on the wall) is irrelevant, but the aggregate is meaningful. This idea is so much a part of life it baffles me when people make the claim that their vote is meaningless. It is blindingly obvious to me that the only meaningful context for discussing a vote is as an aggregate and using thus you must use statistical notions. > Note my critique of Warren's proof in the other sub-thread: > http://lists.electorama.com/pipermail/election-methods-electorama.com/2011-August/028266.html > ---- Election-Methods mailing list - see http://electorama.com/em for list info